Warren v. United States

Petitioner
Jack Wade Warren is an inmate currently housed at the United
States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. He filed this
“Bill in Equity: Petition for Specific
Performance” regarding “property” being
held by the respondent government officials in a
“trust/estate. . . for commercial purpose.” (Doc.
1). The property at issue is Jack Wade Warren himself, and
the trust/estate was supposedly created by the judgments
entered in multiple federal criminal cases against Warren.

Warren
is currently incarcerated as a result of judgments entered
against him in Texas (No. 4:83-cr-138-A-1 (N.D. Tex.)) and
Florida (Nos. 95-cr-209 & 95-cr-1153 (M.D. Fla.)).
Although Warren is using the language of contract law, he is
actually requesting release from his current imprisonment.
Previously, the Court determined that the Petition was best
characterized as a habeas corpus action. (Doc. 5). After
reviewing the merits, the Court also determined that the
Petition was completely frivolous and must be dismissed.
(Doc. 5). The Court further determined that in light of the
obvious frivolity of Warren’s position, sanctions may
be warranted. (Doc. 5). Warren was ordered to show cause by
June 1, 2016 why his case should not be dismissed with
prejudice and a $1, 500 fine imposed with a filing ban until
the sanction is paid. (Doc. 5, p. 5). The Court cited
Warren’s history of filing vexatious and frivolous
cases in this Court, and noted that Warren has been
sanctioned twice before.

Warren
filed a Response to the Order on May 26, 2016. (Doc. 6). That
same day, he also filed a Notice of Rescission. (Doc. 7). In
his Response, Warren states that he did not intend to file a
frivolous, harassing, and/or vexatious action in the above
referenced case. (Doc. 6, p. 1). He further states that
“he was exercising what he perceived as a legal right
in good faith and with clean hands. “ (Doc. 6, p. 1-2).
He also alleges these facts are within his own realm of
knowledge, and the Court has no evidence in the record that
Warren intended the filing to be frivolous, harassing or
vexatious. (Doc. 6, p. 1-2). Specifically, no other person
has testified that Warren intended to file frivolous,
harassing, or vexatious pleadings. (Doc. 6, p. 2). Warren
goes on to direct the Court’s attention to a 1907
Treatise on Suits in Chancery, by Henry Richard Gibson and
Black’s Law Dictionary by Bryan Garner and to discuss
verification, maxims, and equity. (Doc. 6, p. 2-3). He then
translates Latin footnotes for several pages. None of
Warren’s citations have any relevance to the issues at
hand.

Warren’s
“Notice of Recission/Request for Forgiveness”
purports to “rescind” the “Bill in Equity,
Petition for Specific Performance.” (Doc. 7, p. 1). It
goes on to state that the Petition “is hereby
rescinded, made null and void, and is to be of no further
force and/or effect.” (Doc. 7, p. 1). Petitioner also
states that he made an “inadvertent mistake” and
that “every effort will be made to avoid such
mistakes” going forward. (Doc. 7, p. 1). He then
alleges that the law library and legal advice he receives at
the institution are “inadequate” and
“atrocious.” (Doc. 7, p. 1).

Analysis

Warren
has sworn that the Petition was a mistake, perhaps caused by
inadequate legal advice, and that he is sorry for filing it.
He has argued that the Court has no evidence as to his state
of mind other than his own sworn testimony, and therefore,
must find his testimony credible. While it is true that the
Court has not held hearing on this matter in order to observe
Warren and judge his credibility, nor gathered evidence from
others tending to refute Warren’s statements, the Court
is free to consider the inconsistency between Warren’s
sentiments and the manner in which he has expressed them.
Warren appears to be part of the sentient sovereign movement,
which some have called “paper terrorists.” A
hallmark of the movement is the consistent filing of
frivolous actions based on deliberate mis-readings of
contractual law, admiralty law, and other areas.

Here,
although Warren professes regret, his Response and
“Notice of Rescission” are still drafted
according to sentient sovereign principles. Warren uses
“offer” and “acceptance” language,
which is totally irrelevant in the habeas context. (Doc. 6).
In lieu of filing a notice of voluntary dismissal, which is
what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate, Warren
has filed a “Notice of Rescission, ” another term
borrowed from contract law. And although he places the blame
on his frivolous filings on an inadequate law library, no law
library would contain tomes recommending sentient sovereign
tactics because they are not based on valid legal principles.
The Court finds Warren’s continued use of sentient
sovereign legal tactics inconsistent with his statements that
he did not intend to file frivolous, harassing, and or
vexatious filings.

The
Court therefore finds that Warren has not adequately shown
cause. Warren will therefore be sanctioned once again with a
fine and a filing ban.

IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Jack Wade Warren is SANCTIONED with a $1,
500 fine, to be paid before any other civil litigation will
be filed. This fine is in addition to any other filing fees
owed to this District. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
return all civil pleadings unfiled until the sanction is
paid, and all habeas corpus filings will be summarily
dismissed thirty days after filing, unless ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.